Quote:

---

W.H.: Cheney failed on Afghanistan
By CAROL E. LEE


Cheney charged the Obama administration with 'dithering' over its strategy for Afghanistan.

A day after former Vice President Cheney charged the Obama administration ...

... with "dithering" over its strategy for the war in Afghanistan, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs returned fire with guns blazing.

"What Vice President Cheney calls dithering, President Obama calls his solemn responsibility to the men and women in uniform," Gibbs said Thursday. "I think we've all seen what happens when somebody doesn't take that responsibility seriously."

Calling Cheney's comment "curious," Gibbs attacked the Bush administration for allegedly taking years to provide the support necessary for the war effort in Afghanistan.

"I think it's pretty safe to say that the vice president was for seven years not focused on Afghanistan," Gibbs said. "Even more curious given the fact that an increase in troops sat on desks in this White House, including the vice president's, for more than eight months."



Cheney offered his dim assessment of the Obama administration's approach to Afghanistan at a Wednesday dinner hosted by the Center for Security Policy, where the former vice president was present with the group's "Keeper of the Flame" award.

"Having announced his Afghanistan strategy last March, President Obama now seems afraid to make a decision, and unable to provide his commander on the ground with the troops he needs to complete his mission," Cheney said. "The White House must stop dithering while America’s armed forces are in danger. Make no mistake: Signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries. Waffling, while our troops on the ground face an emboldened enemy, endangers them and hurts our cause."

The former vice president also addressed comments made last Sunday by Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, blaming the Bush administration for taking an inadequately active approach to shaping war strategy.

Cheney retorted that Bush administration officials were digging into "every aspect of Afghanistan policy" last fall and briefed the Obama transition team on their findings and recommendations.

"The new strategy they embraced in March, with a focus on counterinsurgency and an increase in the numbers of troops, bears a striking resemblance to the strategy we passed to them," Cheney said.

Gibbs sidestepped a question about whether Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, who was tasked with assessing war strategy by the Bush administration, had filed a report with the recommendations Cheney mentioned.

"I have not looked at that review," Gibbs said. "I don't know whether what he describes is accurate."

Cheney’s remarks had the West Wing "fired up" Thursday morning, according to one aide.

---

Quote:

---

Yrat said:
and the white house responds by blaming the bush administration for its indecision.

---

Quote:

---

lonestar2004 said:

Quote:

---

Yrat said:
and the white house responds by blaming the bush administration for its indecision.

---

is Obama still running for office?

---

Quote:

---

Doc_T said:
Dude just got there, let's give him a chance to dither before we call him on it.

---

Quote:

---

Seuss said:
Obama will do what his handlers tell him to do and nothing else.

---

Quote:

---

The Lute review asked many questions and provided exhaustive answers not only to President Bush, but also to the Obama transition team before the inauguration. "General Jones was briefed on the results of the Lute review, and that review answered many of the questions that Rahm Emanuel says were never asked," says Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley. Jones and Hadley discussed the review, and Lute gave Jones a detailed PowerPoint presentation on his findings. Among the recommendations: a civilian surge of diplomats and other non-military personnel to the country, expedited training for the Afghan National Army, a strong emphasis on governance and credible elections, and, most important, a fully resourced counterinsurgency strategy.

Jones asked Hadley not to release the results of the Lute review so that his boss would have more flexibility when it came time to provide direction for the U.S. presence in Afghanistan. Bush officials reasoned that Obama was more likely to heed their advice if he could simply adopt their recommendations without having to acknowledge that they came from the Bush White House. So Hadley agreed.

"Mr. Emanuel either did not know about our review or chose to lie about it," says Eliot Cohen, who served as counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and was one of the principal participants in the Lute review. Virtually nobody believes Emanuel is clueless. In any case, the author of the review, Doug Lute, remains a senior Afghanistan adviser in the Obama White House.

Perhaps more infuriating for Bush veterans was the suggestion by
Gibbs that the Bush administration ignored requests for more troops. It's nonsense, they say. McKiernan wanted more troops--he asked for three additional brigades in the summer of 2008--but he understood that he could have them only when they became available. "McKiernan was making requests down the line," says a Pentagon official, "and late in 2008 we did have the ability to commit more forces. So we did." Indeed, Bush sent nearly 7,000 additional troops to Afghanistan before he left office, including one brigade that had been repurposed from Iraq.

One Bush veteran asks, "If it's true that the Bush administration sat on these troop requests for eight months, is the White House suggesting that the Pentagon was incompetent or negligent or both? That would be a good question to put to the defense secretary--and President Obama is in a position to make him talk."

I couldn't reach Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, but I did talk to a senior defense official who serves with him. This person stressed that Gates has gone to great lengths to avoid being dragged into political fights between administrations. Nonetheless, he offered a strong rebuke to the present White House political team.

"There was no request on anyone's desk for eight months," said the defense official. "There was not a request that went to the White House because we didn't have forces to commit. So on the facts, they're wrong."

---

Quote:

---

zorbman said:
Mr. private citizen Cheney, please follow the normal example of past presidents and kindly shut your fuckin pie hole.

---

Quote:

---

You had your time and you blew it.

---

Quote:

---

Your ballroom days are over, baby.

---

Quote:

---

Go gracefully into your dotage.

---

Quote:

---

Do you mean like Jimmy Carter?

---

Reading comprehension alert:

The phrase was "normal example".

Cheney needs to shut his yapper. He had his turn and blew it, now it's someone else's turn.

Quote:

---

Redstorm said:
I thought Johnson was responsible for the massive escalation of troop levels in Vietnam? I'm not very well-versed on Vietnam, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

---

"massive" is a loaded word, but I think we all can agree that the root of that is true- more soldiers were sent to the 'Nam under Johnson than the other guys.
But I think as far as 'escalation', you need to look at Nixon.

But that's a whoooole other thread.

Quote:

---

PookztA said:
Dick Cheney... i cant believe he is still making decisions that influence our countries policies by returning to his position as Director at the Council of Foreign Relations (which was founded by David Rockefeller)...

what a bastard... it is like he still is vice-president...

fuck Dick Cheney and his greedy intentions!

RON PAUL 2012!

---

Quote:

---

Redstorm said:
I'm mostly asking for it because it isn't true.

---

Quote:

---

He was but he also tied their hands behind their backs.  He sent in tons of troops and then wouldn't let them fight properly.  Half measures which got a lot of soldiers killed.

---

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
Do you know what "net" means?  Perhaps you also have a problem with cops when they get into shootouts with bank robbers.

---

Quote:

---

Yrat said:

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
Do you know what "net" means?  Perhaps you also have a problem with cops when they get into shootouts with bank robbers.

---

no, i have a problem when they raid the wrong house, without a warrant, and shoot grandma dead.

---

Quote:

---

Redstorm said:
I was under the impression that armored vehicles were not used during the operation seen in Blackhawk Down because of the nature of the operation (in and out quickly) and the terrain of the city?

---

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:

Quote:

---

Yrat said:

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
Do you know what "net" means?  Perhaps you also have a problem with cops when they get into shootouts with bank robbers.

---

no, i have a problem when they raid the wrong house, without a warrant, and shoot grandma dead.

---

I do too.

---

Quote:

---

Yrat said:

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:

Quote:

---

Yrat said:

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
Do you know what "net" means?  Perhaps you also have a problem with cops when they get into shootouts with bank robbers.

---

no, i have a problem when they raid the wrong house, without a warrant, and shoot grandma dead.

---

I do too.

---

so then you're against the war in iraq?

---

Quote:

---

After the Pakistanis were killed by Aidid the nature of the mission changed completely. The U.S. caved to pressure from the UN, our politicians refused to allow the soldiers access to the requested armor and consequently, the bodies of soldiers were dragged through the streets, naked and burned.

---

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
I support both wars.  They have produced net positive effects for world peace and human rights.

---

Quote:

---

whether we agree with the war or not, these people (talking about Americans anyway) chose to be in another country fighting the people who live there....they should be ready for the worst case scenario....and when you are in another persons house, without welcome and killing them, perhaps the worst should not only be prepared for, but expected.  how many Americans protect their house with guns, and have have the legal right to defend their home with deadly force....i see no difference.  the torture and disgusting acts, both ways, are uncalled for i agree.  buts its war, nothing is fair about war, its just retards against retards doing things people really should not do to each other, takes 2 sides to fight.

---

Quote:

---

sucks loosing sometimes, doesn't it?

---

Quote:

---

zorbman said:

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
I support both wars.  They have produced net positive effects for world peace and human rights.

---

Keep on spending us into oblivion, you humanitarian you.

---

Quote:

---

As for having a bunch of wars we never won, we could have won every war after WWII if we chose to. Once again poor leadership, indecisiveness, unwillingness to listen to commanders on  the field, and fear by our "leadership" for their political careers doomed many tens of thousands of American soldiers.

---

Quote:

---

As for not having the organizational skills to handle a war, I would say you are incorrect.

---

Quote:

---

I see that it states that you are from Asia, is that why you seem to have something against the United States? Is it because the last time we actually used our military forces appropriately the Asians were involved? It seems Ironic that an Asian would post what you said on the shroomery, as I believe your yellow skinned, wretched brethren met their untimely, yet well deserved deaths at the receiving end of our mushroom clouds. Apparently your grandmothers ovaries were forever detrimentally changed by the mutagenic qualities of the ionizing radiation from the aforementioned "little boy" bomb. It's quite obvious the mutation had a transgenertional effect, as your cognitive abilities must have been stunted inutero.

---

Quote:

---

kadakuda said:
quick reply, at least we are using quotes

---